NVIDIA Drivers for 2.6 Kernel

fmileto writes "Kerneltrap.org is reporting that Nvidia has released drivers for the 2.6 series kernel. The driver and install directions can be found on Nvidia's website."

Comments

Re:But when

[c_oflynn]

They won't - there is too much good stuff in there for people to steal. I haven't had trouble with them yet, so if they work who cares.

Re:But when

[DaveInAustin]

No, they aren't going to make them open source. If you want open source drivers, write one yourself. What we need now is a good driver for the centrino. And if Intel actually releases it, they should be praised, not critized for not being pure open source.

Re:But when

[Mateito]

> But when will they make them open source?

Unless there is a huge change in their business model, they will never make them open source.

The code for these drivers contains a lot of information about the underlying design... of both the hardware and the accelleration (sp?) techniques that give this product the edge... exactly the sort of stuff competing companies would love to get their hands on. Remember that a good driver can really have a marked effect on the performance of a graphics card.

Of course, all their competitors have probably already reverse engineered every card on the market, but who wants to make it easy?

I love open source as much as the next guy, but we have to accept the commericial reality that just because something runs on an open source platform, it isn't necessarily open source itsself. Oracle is a good example of this.

Linux on the desktop may change this. When enough people avoid buying Company X's product because their cross-platform support blows goats, they may very well be ready to open the source.

This is great news

[deitel99]

The more the 2.6 kernel is accepted by companies the faster it'll get to that "critical point" where distributions will have to start using it not to feel left behind. And for those trying to sell Linux (with services etc) the 2.6 kernel will be an excellent bonus.

I also hope they'll be more stable than the 2.4 + 2.6patch was... I know a fair few people for whom lack of stable videocard support was the factor stopping them upgrade to 2.6.

at least we get a driver...

[Mark19960]

that is more, or less stable and WORKS.
im quite happy with that.
I understand the IP issues involved probably prohibit a source release.
I would just.. let this one go and thank them for at least supporting the linux driver.

GPL soul?

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

For those who've sold their GPL soul to use the binary drivers from NVIDIA (like me) you can get them now.

While I support the GPL and don't particularly like binary-only drivers, I reckon this little phrase has no place in this announcement. To NVidia's credit, they seem to be somewhat serious about supporting Linux in a somewhat timely manner. This sort of allusion won't be a great incentive for other hardware vendors to support Linux at all, they'll just think "whatever we do to be nice to them, those Linux folks will always have something to complain about".

When Linux has 80% marketshare and is a true force to be reckoned with, then perhaps the community will be able to afford sarcasm and get away with it, but in the meantime, there must be other, more constructive ways to entice vendors to embrace open-source.

Re:GPL soul?

[Chagrin]

in the meantime, there must be other, more constructive ways to entice vendors to embrace open-source.

It's difficult to have a principle-based movement when you ignore your principles.

Re:GPL soul?

[DenOfEarth]

It's difficult to have a principle-based movement when you ignore your principles.

Easy solution: If you want to stick to your principles, then don't use the NVIDIA drivers, or buy a card that has open drivers. whatever you do, don't use the closed-source NVIDIA drivers and then complain about your principles not being followed, as you wouldn't be doing anybody any favours, and you'd lose your credibility

Note: this isn't directed at you personally, I just have a thing for people who talk the talk, but don't walk the walk. Y'know, kind of like people who say that cars are a great threat to the environment and all, and it's a shame, but then buy and use a car anyways...it's frustrating.

Re:GPL soul?

[mattACK]

It's difficult to have a movement without any movement, or at least momentum. If they were stealing GPL code that would be one thing. If they support you without embracing your dogma, that is entirely another.

Re:GPL soul?

[noda132]

To NVidia's credit, they seem to be somewhat serious about supporting Linux in a somewhat timely manner.

It feels to me like nVidia is a big corporate giant, bending down to let the OSS community eat out of its grubby paws whatever scraps it leaves them.

There's not "always" something to complain about. There's only one thing to complain about, and that's that nVidia does not co-operate with the Linux community. If it did, nVidia drivers would be in the kernel tree and it'd be twice as easy for all of us to get our cards working on a do-it-yourself kernel. Not to mention, we'd have fewer bugs and probably faster framerates.

Linux would benefit. nVidia would benefit.

Drivers are commodities, there's really no good reason to keep them closed. ESR has written plenty of convincing material on the matter, so I won't re-hash it.

Re:GPL soul?

[SpeedBump0619]

It's difficult to have a principle-based movement when you ignore your principles.

It's difficult to have a useful principle-based movement without substantial movement also.

Why does it never occur to zealots that their chosen nemesis can have any valid reasons for their actions.

Does it ever occur to an open source zealot that maybe there are valid reasons a company can't provide non-binary drivers? Take, for instance, trade secrets. If the company publishes code which clearly describes their specialized process then it is no longer a secret. It is particularly important to protect hardware implementation secrets since they are

1) easilly reverse engineered and
2) difficult to recover engineering NREs to begin with.

What you are advocating is having a company like nvidia pay its engineers to develop new technologies so that other companies can benefit from them. Why would this idea ever appeal to a for profit company?

Please at least try to see the other perspective before condemning it as short sighted and evil. If you can't look at the problem and suggest a workable alternative then maybe you shouldn't be complaining about the current solution.

(NRE == Non-Recurring Expense)

Re:GPL soul?

[swordgeek]

Hmm...

I get a bit annoyed (OK, sometimes REALLY annoyed) at people in the Linux world equating the use of Linux and being an OSS zealot.

Personally, I don't give a rat's ass. If Linux does the job I want it to, better or cheaper than someone else, then I'll use it. If I want to use it, I'll use it. I am not, however, going to town banging on doors and windows about GPL, OSS, and the purity of my morals. If someone else wants to, that's fine. Just don't ruin it for the rest of us. (i.e. by discouraging companies who make good hardware from supporting Linux at all.)

Your post doesn't make me think that you're one of these, but it was a good segue to my point.

As for the car analogy, it brings up the question of compromise. To wit: I live in an area where I can't do without a car, so I had to buy one. I did, however, put fuel efficiency and reliability near the top of my 'important features' list, to cut down on the environmental costs. Furthermore - because I can, I take the bus to work.

Re:GPL soul?

[DenOfEarth]

Thanks for your post, cuz I think we're in the same boat. I think the GPL is cool and all, it definitely addresses some important issues, and it makes things interesting in the world of software development. I use Linux at school and at home, because it's good enough for me, and I like the philosophy behind it. I also use the NVIDIA drivers because their cards are cheap, and they are supporting my OS. The point of my post wasn't to say this was a good thing or bad thing in itself, as I don't really care about the morals of it or anything like that. I just get bugged when the zealots out there do complain, but then download the drivers anyways. There's really no point in that.

Same with the cars issue, I fully understand how useful a car is, and would like to own one myself, but due to the economics, I can't right now. I don't mind taking the bus either, as it gets me where I need to go (except to the mountains). I'm not too much of an environmental zealot, so it doesn't really matter to me what cars are doing to the environment, but again, it bugs me when there are environmental zealots out there who speak of all the evils of cars, then drive one anyways.

It makes me think of a good quote from Gandhi I read once: "be the change you want to see in the world". Makes a better case then just talking about the change you want to see in the world, IMHO

Re:GPL soul?

[Watcher]

I really get tired of hearing this same dispute come up every time nVidia and Linux are mentioned. nVidia can not release their drivers as open source due to the licensing for the AGP interface code in their drivers-pure plain and simple. There is not some huge conspiracy within nVidia to keep you from getting their source, they are not sitting here playing games with you, they are trying to support a market as best as they can within the restrictions imposed upon them by a business decision. If you don't believe me, the do a search here on slashdot into the history of this-even Carmack has chimed in on this one.

I sometimes wonder if there is a more thankless group out there than the Linux user market. Yes, it would be great if the nVidia drivers were open source. The truth of the matter is that unless someone wants to reverse engineer everything in these drivers, you're not going to have that anytime soon.

Re:GPL soul?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know "open source zealots" are annoying to practical people, but honestly GPL software is not just about you the user; it's also about the developers. So if the kernel developers don't think it's appropriate, they ARE entilted to bitch and moan about the GPL. They write the code after all. That's what this email was really saying. The people on LKML are the people who are allowed to be GPL zealots, not couch developers on slashdot.

Re:GPL soul?

[atrus]

You're forgetting the professional 3d market. 3d modeling and design used to be done on IRIX machines. Thats been moving to Linux slowly (and some Windows, but many shops who used IRIX seem to find Linux more up their alley)

Re:GPL soul?

[gottafixthat]

Not quite. I admit, I too am a victim of the mob mentality, a side effect of being constantly bombarded with it, I'm sure. The blame for it doesn't lie with those doing the bombarding, though, it lies within myself for succumbing to it. That is where the search for excellence lies.

Re:GPL soul?

[Watcher]

This depends on the terms of the licensing agreement for the AGP code. nVidia may be barred from writing something to replace that code (I doubt that). Or they may have to do a "clean room" reverse engineering of it, without allowing anyone who has seen the old code base (any part of the driver, no matter how small) to work on the new code. That's a huge investment on their part for what is, in all fairness, a small market. That means that everyone who has worked on the video drivers from at least the TNT card could not be allowed to work on the new driver code at any time for fear of "contamination". That's a very real concern in the litigious world we live in.

Re:But when

[Zen]

I agree. Everytime somebody on /. mentions Nvidia the very first thing that is replied is when will they be opensource. I've never had a problem with the binaries either.

Re:But when

[dmayle]

I know what you mean. I recently put together an SFF Athlon 64 system (Based off of the Biostar iDeq 200P), and I was torn with what to do for a graphics card, because I want to run gentoo as my primary OS. (With windows for the occasional test-compile for work).

I chose an ATI Radeon 9700 Pro because they have better open source drivers (community developed) for they're slightly older stuff, as well as binary support for what's current, but they can't be bothered to release 2.6 AMD64 compiled drivers, and now I'm left wishing I'd bought an Nvidia card just so it would be usable, when I know they have almost no open source support at all..

I want the graphics card companies to realize, when a decently fast graphics card (notice I didn't buy top of the line, so that's a clue to you up and comers) comes out with open source drivers, that's where I'll put my money, and where I'll tell my friends and family to go. You've got to please the geeks, guys, 'cause we influence the purchases of others, as well.

Re:But when

[pe1rxq]

No, they should be critisized for promissing something and not doing it for a year....

Jeroen

Re:But when

[Perl-Pusher]

My next video card purchase will be from a company that makes GPL-compatible drivers. Suggestions anyone?

Yes, build your own card. Because their aren't any. The open source drivers in linux weren't made by the card manufacturers, that is why they will never perform as well as the closed source ones. So if you want an open source driver that performs, you will have to create your own. If and when Linux ever gets the market share to create a demand, I think you will find distributions selling a separate driver CD's, and / or downloads on the manufacturers site that keeps pace with the windows drivers. But I highly doubt you will ever see open source drivers by any hardware manufacturer that faces stiff competition from others. The only periperial card that I have ever bought that had GPL'd drivers by the manufacturer was a multitech modem that contained 4 modems on the board. This was highly specialized for dialin networking and linux has the market share there to make it possible. And modems aren't exactly cutting edge stuff.

Re:No

[stratjakt]

Maybe he should have done 5 minutes worth of research with google before investing $400 bucks or so in a video card.

Or maybe his research was limited to the fanboy rantings of how superior the card is based on artificial benchmarks.

Why are the super tech geniouses of linux land always shocked to find the expensive hardware they just bought has no/little linux support?

Anyhow, for ATi to supply good linux support, that would mean true OpenGL support - something even the windows drivers for the Radeon series are pathetically lacking.

The cards are the 'fastest and greatest' only in Direct3D benchmark apps.

To all the Open Source Whiners

[Adnans]

The Linux drivers NVIDIA released are actually newer than the Windows 2000/XP ones! I call that pretty darn good support!
I'm all for Open Source, but there are probably far too few 3D/OpenGL engineers who have the time to work on and release quality Open Source 3D/OpenGL drivers. NVIDIA has practically their whole driver engineering team working for us. I consider the closed part just an extended piece of 'firmware' for the (closed source) video hardware. The 'loader' and glue code are open source.

It would take a couple of man years to produce quality drivers that even come close to what we have now, and by that time the current crop of 3D hardware cards will be thrice obsoleted (hi Matrox!)

Better to spend our resources improving other things (like GNOME, D-BUS, whatnot) than to duplicate driver magic, just for the sake of being open source.

Now, if you're a PowerPC user, I take everything I said back *grin*

-adnans

Re:mod parent down

[leifm]

Because they're usually posting information that is available if you RTFA.